Talk:Pieter Brueghel the Younger

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flemish Painter?[edit]

The designation 'Flemish painter' requires nuance. That term was later given to a tradition of painting, but the painter would never have identified himself as Flemish at the time. It is therefore better to talk about a Brabant painter who is considered part of Flemish painting. Therefore the request to adjust this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramon1974 (talk • contribs) 11:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wife of Coninxloo?[edit]

The sentence "Brueghel later even married the wife of his master" needs to go. Van Mander tells us that Pieter II studied under Gilles van Coninxloo, but there doesn't seem to be any information anywhere that I've seen to suggest that Elisabeth Godelet, his real wife, was earlier married to his master. I am going to fix some of the mistakes on this page. The German version is quite good and provides a fair model. --Stomme 19:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am certain this previous problem stems from confusing Pieter's father, who married the daughter of Pieter van Aelst, with Pieter Jr. I removed the confusing sentence and added a clear one in its place. I also began adding some additional information. For now it is based largely on the German version. --Stomme 20:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made by Vert33 to wiki articles on artists[edit]

Original image

On 20 June 1014 Vert33 changed, without motivating this change, the picture of this article from the work entitled Village lawyer (which is one of the best known original inventions by Pieter Bruegel the Younger) to a painting which is a copy by PB the Younger of a painting by his father. I reverted this to the original painting on 7 July after having an online discussion with Vert33 about his activities on wiki. In my view readers who want to learn about PB the Younger would prefer to see an original invention of this artist rather than a copy he made of his father's work. However, Vert33 reverted my change and accused me of vandalism. In a discussion on his talk page, he tries to argue that he put in the work from a Polish collection because it illustrates PB the Younger's copying process which is discussed in the article. Well, copying is just copying and the end result is still a copy and not an original invention by the artist who is the subject of the article. The replacement painting in fact does not illustrate the copying process at all. For this reason, the original painting of the Village Lawyer was the better choice for this article.

If we look at Vert33's history of edits on wiki, a large portion of these consist in the replacement of images of artist works by images of artist works in the collection of Polish museums. In some cases this may be an improvement but in most cases it is clear that the only reason why the substitution was made is to showcase a work located in a Polish collection. It seems thus that Vert33 is on a mission to give all paintings in Polish museums a place in art-related articles on wiki. Vert33 has tried to justify his edits/changes by arguing he has access to pictures from Poland, which are of good quality, good description, the best examples for a particular artist and released to public domain. This is clearly not true in the case of the Bruegel image, which is not the best example of the artist’s work (rather, the original image was the better example). A similar case is the picture of the Madonna and Child in the wiki article on Vincent Malo. In the Vincent Malo article, Vert33 replaced an existing image (in the Rijksmuseum) with an image of the Madonna and Child (again in a Polish collection). It is clearly an image he copied from a Polish blog and is therefore of extremely low quality (look at the painfully red colour) and is also not a good example of the qualities of Vincent Malo. However, Vert33 has argued that it is a good example of the colours of Rubens (poor Rubens). In my view Vert33 replaced a completely valid image without any good reason just to plug a Polish museum.

New image

A lot of people contribute to wiki articles about topics related to their home country because they love ther country. This is not a problem as long as they provide objective and sourced information. Vert33 seems to replace completely valid images on wiki with his own images usually only because of what seems to be a nationalist agenda. I would call upon Vert33 to show more respect for the editorial decisions of the editors and writers who put in all the time and effort to actually create the articles. I can only imagine how frustrating it must be for these editors to see their well thought out choices replaced by a less appropriate choice (in the case of Bruegel the replacement of a Bruegel invention by a copy after his father’s work) or by a low-quality and ugly picture (in the case of the Vincent Malo image). There are many more examples (see the replacement in Abraham van Beijeren).

It is better not to accuse others of vandalism if it is clear that some of the choices made by Vert33 have made the articles worse than they were before and were not made on objective grounds. And maybe a Polish speaker should consider contributing to wiki by writing articles about Polish artists where he/she could probably add more value. I would certainly like to read such articles. ArteGod (talk) 08:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am always making my editions when I consider them to benefit and enrich the article. I simply know well works located in Poland so why I cannot share my knowledge about them? and my own photos? - all in good quality, good description, references, best works of particular artist and released to public domain. If someone consider them as inappropriate we can discuss. Xenophobic theories by ArteGod are ridiculous. Xenophobia is against Wikipedia spirit! - Vert33 (talk) 11:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First vandalism, now Xenophobia. You're funny. My argument is that you substitute valid images with your images that are not always the best suited or of the best quality and that you interfere needlessly with articles that other people have taken effort to create. But at least you admit that it is your agenda to change the existing images with your images solely because they are from Polish museums. ArteGod (talk) 11:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After this thorough analysis by such a bright mind I must admit, it's part of our evil Polish plan to take over the world through editions in minor articles in Wikipedia :/ -- Vert33 (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You should discuss your changes maybe before you make them, some of them were not so bright. Pieter Brueghel the Younger is not exactly a minor article. Amandajm, which image do you think it should be in the article? Hafspajen (talk) 00:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Vert33, ArteGod, Hafspajen, there really is no case for substituting a copy of someone else's work for a work of the artist's own design. As far as I am concerned, putting the copy ack the second time, after this had already been pointed out on the talk page, defies common-sense.
However, Pieter Breughel the Younger was indeed a major copyist, both of his own and his father's work. Because this has been stated in the article, it can also be illustrated. Amandajm (talk) 05:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some changes in accordance with this suggestion.
  • the detailed image sitting alongside the full picture is a bad look, unless the detail is the subject of analysis, which it isn't. Better to leave it out.
  • A second original composition needs to be chosen to go alongside the Lawyer. This needs to be carefully chosen, because many of the images on Commons are copies of his father's works.
  • Somebody needs to go through every picture listed for Pieter the Younger on Commons and check the written descriptions, in order to make sure that every image that is a copy is clearly stated as such.For example, there are copies of Carnival and Lent and copies of Tower of Babel. NOTE: it is also possible that some of the father's works have been accidentally included under Pieter the Younger and vice versa.
Amandajm (talk) 06:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that you all are very eager to discuss, but I think that discussion on above mentioned topic was solved. Vert33 (talk) 07:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here we can discuss all our problems, Amandajm is our art expert. And Vert, I saw a couple of your changes in art articles and saw the way other editors protested against them, while you shaked them of. Hafspajen (talk) 07:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you name examples confirming your statements in my talk page?! Please note that: Making accusations of tendentious editing can be inflammatory (...) It can be seen as a personal attack if tendentious editing is alleged without clear evidence. First someone making only Dutch associated editions in wiki accuses me on nationalism and now this. Following example from ArteGod is certainly not a good idea. It's my right, like anybody here, to use image which fit my editions. If sombody disagrees with this we can discuss on the site which is dedicated to it. I am not conducting any edit war and in my opinion discussion here was solved. I will not not accept any further xenophobic, racist and discriminating theories! Vert33 (talk) 08:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the "new image" regarded as coming from a Polish source? The image links to a Sotheby's (NY) sale of 2013 ($700,000- Christie's got $1,000,000 for another version in 2010). The Sotheby's one looks a bit too fresh- but I can't get a condition report without registering for online bidding. Maybe that's why it sold at an apparent discount. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 10:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
? Both are in museums, the original in Belgium, the new in Kracow. Whether or not there is a nationalist issue (and it looks like there may be) people should be very cautious about replacing images in articles on major painters with their own images (shot or uploaded by them). The picture selections here vary a lot, but some have been very carefully done, choosing from the huge range of images on Commons. For example we have over 200 images in the category for this artist. Johnbod (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is amusing to note that accusing someone of vandalism and xenophobia is apparently not inflammatory or a personal attack. I don't like to add fuel to the flames but would still like to note that these editorial changes by Vert33 that he uses as the motivations for his substitutions of images usually consist of rather basic statements such as this illustrates Rubens' vivid colours or this illustrates Botticelli's lines, which seem to derive from an 'Art History 101', whereas we can assume that the original editors of the articles who selected the original images used a more thorough understanding of the subject when making their selections. ArteGod (talk) 04:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(reply to Johnbod) The files got swapped around by a małpa- as you say, the "Preaching" one's in Krakow, the Sotheby's version of the "Lawyers" is in Zakopane (joke). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 05:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Blymie, guess it will then have to be substituted with the copy held in the Hermitage. Have revised the article and added another original work by PB the Y. ArteGod (talk) 11:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pieter Brueghel the Younger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter Bruegel[edit]

? Framed the Old Shepard on board .Any information ? Tracyquest (talk) 07:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pieter_Brueghel_the_Younger&oldid=1206188592"